"Rockefeller Republicans take Manhattan"

[The Duke]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

(sigh)...  Ah, the good old days.  When Pugs knew their place, and accepted it quietly.  Now we have to start the "house training" ALL OVER!


- Alfie
sit.  stay.

Yeah, how dare we kick your arses on a regular basis.  How dare we control the House, Senate, White House, the Supreme Court, the governorship of the four largest states in the union, and the majority of governorships?  How dare the majority agree with our views?

[Alfie]

"Achtung Pugs: one of your own is about to be called out.  There will be blood on the floor.  It will be distressing.  It will be violent.  Avoid a similar fate by keeping your mouths still.  Think of your children.  Think of your family.  That is all."
[/blue] [/b]
Johnnie Ford writes;

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I believe the National Socialist Party also enjoyed overwhelming popular support... for a time.

- Alfie
delivers the truth for free

[The Duke]

Fool.

The NSDAP was most unpopular throughout Germany, as historian Ian Kerhsaw demnstrates in his "The Hitler Myth", a book documenting how Hitler was able to manipulate the publci's image of him.  Hitler the man was popular, his party was not.  He never held a majority in the Reichstag, its best showing before 1933 was only 37%.  They did not take control of the country until Hitler prevented any further elections by invoking the emrgency owers of his Chancelor position (an appointed post, not one to which he was elected).

Is this really your argument?  Not part of your argument, not even the core of your argument, but the whole argument in its entirety, is that Republicans are like Nazis because both can claim to have been popular?

[12th Doctor]

Fool.

The NSDAP was most unpopular throughout Germany, as historian Ian Kerhsaw demnstrates in his "The Hitler Myth", a book documenting how Hitler was able to manipulate the publci's image of him.  Hitler the man was popular, his party was not.  He never held a majority in the Reichstag, its best showing before 1933 was only 37%.  They did not take control of the country until Hitler prevented any further elections by invoking the emrgency owers of his Chancelor position (an appointed post, not one to which he was elected).

Is this really your argument?  Not part of your argument, not even the core of your argument, but the whole argument in its entirety, is that Republicans are like Nazis because both can claim to have been popular?

An obvious point to anyone who has ever picked up a history book, John, but I can assure you, our friend here won't care.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

(sigh)...  Ah, the good old days.  When Pugs knew their place, and accepted it quietly.  Now we have to start the "house training" ALL OVER!


- Alfie
sit.  stay.

Yeah, how dare we kick your arses on a regular basis.  How dare we control the House, Senate, White House, the Supreme Court, the governorship of the four largest states in the union, and the majority of governorships?  How dare the majority agree with our views?

You lost the 2000 election by 540,000 votes.

[The Duke]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

(sigh)...  Ah, the good old days.  When Pugs knew their place, and accepted it quietly.  Now we have to start the "house training" ALL OVER!


- Alfie
sit.  stay.

Yeah, how dare we kick your arses on a regular basis.  How dare we control the House, Senate, White House, the Supreme Court, the governorship of the four largest states in the union, and the majority of governorships?  How dare the majority agree with our views?

You lost the 2000 election by 540,000 votes.

Oooh, nice comeback!  Ever hear of the electoral college?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

(sigh)...  Ah, the good old days.  When Pugs knew their place, and accepted it quietly.  Now we have to start the "house training" ALL OVER!


- Alfie
sit.  stay.

Yeah, how dare we kick your arses on a regular basis.  How dare we control the House, Senate, White House, the Supreme Court, the governorship of the four largest states in the union, and the majority of governorships?  How dare the majority agree with our views?

You lost the 2000 election by 540,000 votes.

Oooh, nice comeback!  Ever hear of the electoral college?

If the "majority agree with your views", why did Bush lose the popular vote by 540,000 votes, and then need a scrub list and to stop a recount to win the electoral college? Your scrub list just got thrown out, BTW. It was a bunch of crap. 0.13% of the people on the list were hispanics.

[The Duke]

A majority does agree with our views.  We control every bracnh of government at the federal level and the majority of state government agencies.

Bush and Gore were individuals, not philosophies.  Voters voted for the individual in the Presidential election, and it had little to do with which party platform most people aligned themselves with.  Even so, even with the 504,000 votes differential in the PV, so much of that is a result of low turnout in states that were long ago decided.  What would it be lik eif the whole country felt their vote counted?  We will never know, and it is silly to pretend that the PV is representative of anything but a parlor game.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

People haven't been able to vote for President since 2000. Amoung people who said that issues were more important than personality, Gore got close to 60% of the vote.

If the whole country felt like their vote counted, turnout would have been much higher in states like New York (Gore had a comfortable lead in every poll ever there), helping Gore.

[The Duke]

First of all, fix your quote box.

Second, turnout would have been higher in Texas, but not so much in New York because NY already had a major race of national importance to get them to the polls: The Clinton-Lazio Senate race.  Texas, on the other hand, was long ago decided and voters had little reason to go to the polls.  Texas is also larger the New York.

In fact, in counties won by Bush, there were 143 million people, and only 127 million in counties for Gore.  This tell sme that there were probably a lot more voters for Bush that stayed home than for Gore.  Granted, this is all speculation, and that goes back to my earlier point, that popular votes don't reflect the opinion of voters as much as they would if we had a truly national election.

As for the "issue voters vote Gore" line, I've heard it before.  Something tells me that very few people voted for Bush who didn't want a tax cut and very few people voted for Gore who didn't want bigger government.  People find politicians they agree with to be more likeable, but liberals tend not to admit that.  They always say it the issues, while conservatives see their worldview reflected in individuals and vote for this person because of this "likeability".  But really, it isn't likeability at all.

[Alfie]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In all fairness, they "won" by 500 votes in Florida.  Of course, thousands of legitimately registered voters were not allowed to vote, mostly your basic African Americans of Democratic persuasion -- voters who supported Al Gore (something like 90%+) at the polls.  Of course, no one wants to talk about THAT; rather, they (Pugs) use the "side issue" of dangling chads, and this 'n that "butterfly ballots" and "stoopid voters don't know how to use a machine..."  

Fact is, the election was stolen, "fair and square", or so say Pugs, citing the alleged theft of the 1960 election by JFK.  Whatever.  Stolen is stolen, right?

So in waltzes the Thief, promising to govern with bipartisanship, only to stab the nation in the back as soon as he took office.  Evil, evil man!  Evil, evil party!  This election we Dems must cream Bush everywhere, relentlessly seeking voters to "pull" the lever straight Democratic -- all the way down the line, and in every polling place in the nation.

I fear what will become of America if Bush and his trash are "elected" again; I fear we may not have much of a country after two terms -- two "life sentences" of mismanagement, corruption, moral decay, misplaced values, and the gluttony of the entire Pug structure.   I feel like this nation is choking from the volume of lies and half-truths of this regime of rascals, rapists, radikals, and retro-nazis.

And when these merchants of mendacity attack our nominee for being "too liberal" or "too soft", let's remember that these Pugs will say and do anything to gang-bang our country.  Stopping them isn't only a duty; it is an imperative placed upon us by the founding fathers.  "One nation" we may not be, and "liberty and justice for all" are now mere words, but we can change that by countering these liars at every turn, by trucking zero lies, and by going toe to toe in every precinct in the land.  We can win, we must win, and we will win.  Then we build the gallows on the national Mall.  Payback is a b!tch -- and we learned that from them.

- Alfie

[Alfie]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You know, Johnnie, you bring to my mind Jean Lecomte du Nouy's painting, "Dream of a Eunuch."  Lousy painting, shown in a dreary gallery here in Manhattan, but inspiring nonetheless.  Why?  All a Eunuch can do is dream, recall, and regret.  Does this "resonate" with you?


Read REAL slow, again.  You wrote:

"How dare we control the House, Senate, White House, the Supreme Court, the governorship of the four largest states in the union, and the majority of governorships?  How dare the majority agree with our views?"

I replied:

"I believe the National Socialist Party also enjoyed overwhelming popular support... for a time."

What was my point?  That lots of ugly governments -- lots of ugly leaders, too, including Hitler and Bush -- were popular, if for a short time.  That's the sum of my point.  Why must you drag "who shot Johann" and "League of Women Voters" and "I saw on Stalag 13"...  

Please!  The point was made, now deal with it.  Your overdone drama bidness is ineffective and tinny.

- Alfie

likes REAL BIG dogs

[Alfie]

Johnnie "Fatwa" Ford writes;


"Second, turnout would have been higher in Texas, but not so much in New York because NY already had a major race of national importance to get them to the polls: The Clinton-Lazio Senate race.  Texas, on the other hand, was long ago decided and voters had little reason to go to the polls.  Texas is also larger the New York.

In fact, in counties won by Bush, there were 143 million people, and only 127 million in counties for Gore.  This tell sme that there were probably a lot more voters for Bush that stayed home than for Gore. Granted, this is all speculation, and that goes back to my earlier point, that popular votes don't reflect the opinion of voters as much as they would if we had a truly national election.

As for the "issue voters vote Gore" line, I've heard it before.  Something tells me that very few people voted for Bush who didn't want a tax cut and very few people voted for Gore who didn't want bigger government.  People find politicians they agree with to be more likeable, but liberals tend not to admit that.  They always say it the issues, while conservatives see their worldview reflected in individuals and vote for this person because of this "likeability".  But really, it isn't likeability at all.[/b]"




Couldn't agree more -- Thanks for sharing!


- Alfie
considers white a unique fashion statement



Alfie's more Upper West Side than Central Park West, but, hey, if it works, it works, right?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

First of all, fix your quote box.

Second, turnout would have been higher in Texas, but not so much in New York because NY already had a major race of national importance to get them to the polls: The Clinton-Lazio Senate race.  Texas, on the other hand, was long ago decided and voters had little reason to go to the polls.  Texas is also larger the New York.

In fact, in counties won by Bush, there were 143 million people, and only 127 million in counties for Gore.  This tell sme that there were probably a lot more voters for Bush that stayed home than for Gore.  Granted, this is all speculation, and that goes back to my earlier point, that popular votes don't reflect the opinion of voters as much as they would if we had a truly national election.

As for the "issue voters vote Gore" line, I've heard it before.  Something tells me that very few people voted for Bush who didn't want a tax cut and very few people voted for Gore who didn't want bigger government.  People find politicians they agree with to be more likeable, but liberals tend not to admit that.  They always say it the issues, while conservatives see their worldview reflected in individuals and vote for this person because of this "likeability".  But really, it isn't likeability at all.

Ok, so Hillary Clinton won by "only" 11 points. What about California? The Senate race there was a forgone conclusion, and despite Bush's delusions otherwise, it was not a swing state. Because of the electoral college, a vote in a large non-swing state is pretty useless.

Who cares about the populations of the counties? A lot of Gore's counties were supreme blow outs, like the 7.7 million people living in the main 4 boroughs of NY.  NYC did not have particularly high voter turn out. If their votes actually counted in the Presidential election, turn out would have been much higher, aiding Gore.

Have you looked at the figures for how much bigger the government is getting? Sorry, the government might actually be smaller if Gore was President.

[Alfie]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Johnnie's attempting to whistle past the graveyard of the 2000 fiasco.  Johnnie is blowing smoke.  Johnnie uses typical Pug tools of the trade as he endeavors to obfuscate, distract, divert, and undermine.   Nothing new, nothing special here, except that it degrades the exchange of viewpoints.  "A turd in the punchbowl" is what it amounts to.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Actually it was getting smaller.  Gore led the NPR -- the National Performance Review, often call "Reinventing Government".  Under NPR nearly 250,000 federal jobs were made redundant; that's a good thing, typically.  Now, the federal government has become a land of the "haves" and the "have-nots" -- the "haves" being the political appointees, and the "have-nots" being the professional federal workforce, which is being striped of its authority by the "haves."  How?  Outsourcing, largely, and largely to companies like SAIC, Titan, and SRA.  All politically connected -- hard wired.  And, perhaps more insidiously, through the instillation of fear in the federal workplace.  Have you read about the former Chief of the US Park Police?


"WASHINGTON (CNN) -- One day after she was fired, former U.S. Park Police Chief Teresa Chambers accused the Bush administration Saturday of silencing dissenting views in the rank and file.

Chambers' departure may not garner the same spotlight as those of former counterterrorism expert Richard Clarke and former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, but it appears to fall into a similar category: officials who leave or are forced out after questioning Bush administration policies.

"The American people should be afraid of this kind of silencing of professionals in any field," she said. "We should be very concerned as American citizens that people who are experts in their field either can't speak up, or, as we're seeing now in the parks service, won't speak up."


Also consider the Amb. Wilson situation.  You'll recall Ambassador Wilson was sent to Niger to investigate the claims that Iraq had purchased (or attempted to purchase) "yellow cake" uranium as part of its alleged "nuclear program", the one Bush cited in his SOTUA.  When Wilson debunked this lie, the WH leaked that Wilson's wife, Ms. Plume, was a covert agent with the CIA.  While that is being "investigated", with no help from GWB, of course, the message was sent, and received: do not fuh with this admin.  That has sent a chill down the collective spine of the civil service.  The message was received: dozens of (relatively) senior people whose names you would not know have left the federal government, some in protest, some ushered out the door.  

This form of herd culling is an abomination against the notion of a stable, focused, and effective senior executive service, but it accomplishes some of the goals of this WH: silence its critics, reduce the chances of the truth "getting out", replacement of key workers with cronies or contractors, and crippling the internal checks and balances of the bureaucracy.  This is a new and disturbing trend in governance, one that undermines the integrity of the executive branch, and further closes the government to inspection and accountability.  Accountability!  If I've heard Bush use that word once, I've heard it a thousand times, yet who among his own staff have been terminated for their screw-ups?  Who was fired for the "yellow cake" being inserted into the SOTUA?  No one. Who was fired for bungling the PDB of 06 August 01?  No one.  Who was fired for failing to "connect the dots" regarding the 11 September attacks?  No one.  "Accountability?"  Bush?  Please.

Not since those dark days of J. Edgar Hoover has fear so ruled the government.  And for this, we can say, "Thank YOU, George "WTC" Bush!  And thank YOU, Johnnie "Fatwa" Ford, for spreading the admin's lies.  Even at this puny level, he, like thousands of other kool-aid drinkers, does the dirty work of the despicable Bush/"TBA" machine.

- Alfie

[??????????]

I call Godwins Law on Alfie. End of Discussion.

[Alfie]

I call Godwins Law on Alfie. End of Discussion.

If it walks, talks, and smells like "x", chances are damned good it's an "x", too.  Can't deal with it?  No skin off my nose.

- Herr Alfie

[??????????]

I call Godwins Law on Alfie. End of Discussion.

If it walks, talks, and smells like "x", chances are damned good it's an "x", too.  Can't deal with it?  No skin off my nose.

- Herr Alfie

I call Godwins Law on Alfie. End of Discussion.

[The Duke]

Goodwin's Law:

Professor Goodwin, U of I, in 1981 made the observation that Usenet discussions gravitate downhill.

He postulated that as the length of a discussion thread grows, the probability approaches one (1) that one participant will introduce the terms "Hitler" or "Nazi".

The custom has evolved that the first party to utter "Hitler" or "Nazi" has lost the discussion, and the thread terminates.


I agree with states.  Alfie invoked Hitler first and loses by TKO.

But I wonder who wins a discussion when the thread IS a debate about Hitler?

[??????????]

In other words Alfie :

[Alfie]

In other words Alfie :

I have nothing to say to you.  You do not exist.  You and "Nancy Reagan" can go whining all you want to the sysadmin, cry all you want about "BOO-HOO!  Alfie used a cuss word."  "BOO-HOO!  Alfie compared a certain prezzie to a certain dictator" all you want.   I am disengaging from you, Nancy Reagan, and the fifteen year old soulsby or whatever his name is.   You see, it isn't worth it.  You have your beliefs, I have mine.  We talk past each other, and learn nothing from each other.  I will pick my battles, limiting them to honest, open, and reasonable people on this board.

Bye, Mark, Nancy, and soulsby.

[??????????]

You tactic of insults and idiocy do not bode well for your future on this board. Good luck I doubt anyone will take you seriously. You have basically shot yourself in the foot and your reputation is bleeding to death.

[The Duke]

Bye, Mark, Nancy, and soulsby.

You'll still let me kick your @$$ though, right?

-Ford
delivers servings for free

[Alfie]

Bye, Mark, Nancy, and soulsby.

You'll still let me kick your @$$ though, right?

-Ford
delivers servings for free

Nancy,

I'd never hit a lady.

[12th Doctor]

In other words Alfie :

And then Alfie said:

I have nothing to say to you.  You do not exist.  You and "Nancy Reagan" can go whining all you want to the sysadmin, cry all you want about "BOO-HOO!  Alfie used a cuss word."  "BOO-HOO!  Alfie compared a certain prezzie to a certain dictator" all you want.   I am disengaging from you, Nancy Reagan, and the fifteen year old soulsby or whatever his name is.   You see, it isn't worth it.  You have your beliefs, I have mine.  We talk past each other, and learn nothing from each other.  I will pick my battles, limiting them to honest, open, and reasonable people on this board.

Bye, Mark, Nancy, and soulsby.

What, we aren't Pugs allowed to complain when the Libs are acting like jackasses?  Or is our attempt to bring some sanity in a discussion "violating" the first amendment.  Are we trying to silence you Alfie.  Are we oppressing you?  Are you going to cry now?

By the way, I'm 20, not 15, but that means nothing really because intelletually I'm decades ahead of you.